Body Scanners for the London Underground

Ronald Dumsfeld writes "In a report in the TimesOnline, it is alleged that those lovely see-through-your-clothes scanners are to be installed in London's Tube stations. Part of the UK's Military-industrial complex, QinetiQ stands to make £150,000 to £2 million per station ($260,000 - $3.4 million) with their Millimetre Wave Imagers."

Comments

The perception of security

[gbulmash]

Well, some will say you can't put a price on a human life. Of course, that's in the abstract. Our courts do it regularly in wrongful death lawsuits. I also seem to recall someone doing an invoice for the carbon, water, and other compounds our bodies contain if we were to buy them at a chemistry supply house, but I dcouldn't find it on Google.

Essentially it boils down to this. However you believe a government should spend tax dollars, they're going to get spent in two ways: to benefit campaign supporters and cronies, and to do things that mollify the public just enough to make the re-election fight a little easier. A terrorist incident makes people feel less safe, so politicians spend money on things that make them feel safer. Good, bad, effective, useless... doesn't matter. It just has to be perceived as responsive.

Expensive scanners in tube stations? Brilliant!

Security costs money. Of course, the money gets spent on expensive and showy equipment, not on better training of security personnel (or screening of security personnel - some TSA screeners look like they should have their mittens safety-pinned to their coats). But it's all bread and circuses. It's about the perception of security. And governments are great at spending money to create that.

- Greg

Re:The perception of security

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your theory is that, by and large, Londoners aren't drooling imbeciles. There are exceptions, sure, but the number of people who are going to feel safer as a result of scannners in tube stations is negligible.

Re:The perception of security

[gbulmash]

The problem with your theory is that, by and large, Londoners aren't drooling imbeciles. There are exceptions, sure, but the number of people who are going to feel safer as a result of scannners in tube stations is negligible.

Yeah, but who's going to bomb a rail platform in Bristol?

The MP's put the showy equipment in showy places so it gets coverage on the BBC nationwide. They provide the illusion of action that filters out through TV screens across the nation, and a downmarket housefrau in Middlesex feels good that the government is doing something.

- Greg

Re:The perception of security

[Mattygfunk1]

Security costs money. Of course, the money gets spent on expensive and showy equipment, not on better training of security personnel

While I take your point on the perception of security in the purchase, you're asking a lot of security staff to detect something deliberatly being hidden with as much accuracy as this technology suppossedly will.

Getting on public transport shouldn't require an interview, lie detector, and strip search before boarding, but it is a common terrorism target and should be protected with the highest security practical.

__
Free funny pics and videos

Re:The perception of security

[Hope Thelps]

Disagree. What they're doing is creating a target.

Nobody who's thought about it, in Government or out of it, thinks that the tube can be secured. Making high profile security measures just makes a tempting target for terrorists. The more secured it was claimed to be, the more publicity the attacks bring.

Of course, that helps the governments message of how scared we should all be, so they're happy.

Re:The perception of security

[BackInIraq]

But it's all bread and circuses. It's about the perception of security. And governments are great at spending money to create that.

No joke. Excellent example...I recently had the singular joy of going through a US airport. I was forced to take off my boots (I say forced because I initially chose not to, and was still singled out for additional search even though I didn't set off the metal detector), and had my luggage randomly selected for additional search.

Oh, I must have forgotten to mention that I was a soldier returning to Iraq, in uniform, with government-purchased tickets and a valid military ID. Definitely a high-threat passenger.

If I wanted to kill some Americans, I could make it happen much more easily. I have access to a weapon, ammunition, and with a little planning even explosives every single day over here.

Are we more safe because they spent longer searching me than nearly everybody else on the plane? I'm gonna go with a no. Are we safer when the US government spends more per capita on security in Wyoming than New York City? Not really.

It's really just a giant game of whack-a-mole anyway. Make planes safer, they hit subways. Make subways safer, it'll be busses. After that shopping malls, then city streets. Then when random sidewalk bombs and carbombs force the government to stretch themselves so thin that they can barely cover every possible terrorist attack...they'll go back to planes, because lack of funding will have compromised security there.

One of the most effective terrorist attacks ever (not THE most, mind you) was probably the DC sniper...not in lives lost, of course, but in actual disruption to people's daily lives and fear caused. And all an attack like that requires is a guy with a gun, and good aim. You may not even get caught, especially if cover a wide area (multiple cities, for instance).

You can't win a war against terrorists, especially not with cops, soldiers, and gadgets.

Re:The perception of security

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody who's thought about it, in Government or out of it, thinks that the tube can be secured. Making high profile security measures just makes a tempting target for terrorists. The more secured it was claimed to be, the more publicity the attacks bring."

Wrong! Where did you get trained on Terrorism 101?

Terrorists tend to attack targets at which they will have a high probability of success. This is the reason you rarely here about a terrorist attack thwarted *in-action*. They would love to truck bomb the white house or 10 Downing Street, but they know they would have a low probability of success. While they may have a 10% chance of being able to pull it off, that is too risky. If you actually study terrorism in the past 20 years it becomes very obvious that plots are planned and executed similar to the way a business will plan and execute any action. Both have investments of time, money, and lives and want the maximum return on investment.

There was *no* security to stop the terrorists on July 7th. This is why they selected their targets as they did.

Re:The perception of security

[Itchy Rich]

...And governments are great at spending money to create that.

Luckily for the British taxpayer this project is never going to get off the ground. The quoted price is for the scanners alone. Add to that the cost of:

• Renovating every station to funnel passengers through the scanning area
• Manning the scanners (including security personel trained to confront terrorists) 19 hours a day
• The extra delays caused by the queues to get scanned (consider what London earns in an hour, and the effect on that of delays and bad tempers)
• Maintainance, service and training costs.

Add to that the expense, privacy concerns, and the fact that this wouldn't protect overground trains or buses, and you've got yourself a 'class A1' dead duck.

Re:The perception of security

[Znork]

"Expensive scanners in tube stations? Brilliant!"

Truly. They should create absolutely marvellous queues where terrorists can blow up bombs and get a whole lot more people killed.

"It just has to be perceived as responsive."

Indeed. Of course, the money could have been spent on things that might actually save some lives, like measures to prevent traffic accidents or healthcare. Which means spending the money on useless security junk actually costs people lives instead.

"It's about the perception of security."

Yep. Sticking a 10 cent blinking diode device in the hand of security guards and calling it a 'bomb detector' would do just as well. Heck, stage a few very public and publicised incidents where an actor is caught by such a device emitting a beep and even a whole bunch of the terrorists would think they couldnt get away with carrying around explosives.

Re:The perception of security

[sleeper0]

I think the real question is if an installation like this is even remotely possible or practical for something like a commuter transit system. We put up with long lines and big delays for air travel, but surely the daily volume on something like the tube dwarfs the daily volume through heathrow. Not to mention the install costs would likely be a pittance compared to the costs of hiring people to operate the equipment and scan every passenger.

Seems to me this is very unlikely to actually come to pass. If it does I think it's probably a shame. The truth is the world will always be somewhat dangerous, terrorists or no. We don't all walk around encased in bubble wrap.

Re:The perception of security

[los furtive]

Your point is valid as well, but flawed. Put scanners on the subway, and terrorists will just take the bus instead. Put them on the bus, they'll bring bombs to the movie theatre, the concert hall, the bowling alley, the schoolyard, the community center, the gym, shopping mall, grocery store, day cares, etc... In fact, the London bombings are a perfect example of the ease by which terrorists can shift their targets, and was probably a direct result of the increase in security at airports over the past few years.

Of course, perhaps it is money well invested since the logistics involved in a subway terrorism incident aren't pretty, but neither were the logistics of for the people trapped in the World Trade Center nor even the children in Beslan.

Since there will always be a way, I think it's a matter of changing the will instead. The money should be spent on winning the hearts and minds of the people of other countries. I'm not talking about the terrorists but those who the terrorists use for support. Blow up a bus... increase aid to starving countries, shoot down a plane, build a dozen schools or a community center in a struggling nation. Oh, and I'd still have my gov'ts police and intelligence seek out and punish those who took the action.

Re:The perception of security

[Lonewolf666]

In this case, you would have to secure ALL stations at a really high price. Otherwise the bomber gets aboard at a remote suburb without scanner, sets the bomb off in the city, and the bad guys will just laugh at the stupid cops.

Considering the shortsightedness of typical politicians, "less critical" stations will be left out to save money and the above is exactly what will happen.

Re:The perception of security

[rmstar]

A german police chief was asked on TV the day of the London bombings what extra measures should be taken.

He said: "None. The measures are effective as they can be; we cannot avoid all terrorist attacks just as we cannot avoid all crime." I was impressed, really. Intelligent man.

There is a point of diminishing returns for everything.

Re:The perception of security

[AGMW]

The purpetrators of this attrocity are the faceless, and I would suggest faithless (because no one could truthfully commit such acts in the name of any God) terrorists, and their aim is to spread, rather obviously, terror.

If serious actions are now taken to try and prevent them succeeding again, then two things will happen :-

1) Our freedoms will be eroded and we _will_ be terrorised by the spectre of metal detectors, exposive sniffers and body searches when untertaking any normal, day-to-day, things like getting on a bus or entering a shop.

2) We will NOT stop them from doing it again, because it is simply not possible to prevent someone hell-bent on suicide from blowing themselves up!

Therefore, at least on the "home front", we have to not impose restrictions on our freedoms in the futile attempt to curtail the movements and actions of the terrorists. This will be the most difficult thing for the Government, who apparently believe that "taking action" is always the answer because if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail!

We in London and the rest of the UK do, however, have to return to a vigilance akin to the height of the IRA campaign and should watch out for unattended packages. Let us not start suspecting each other as we remember that the bombs did not target any religion, race, creed, or colour, but were an indisciminately blunt weapon affecting any and all in its path.

We need to know what they are hoping to achieve. We should not simply capitulate like the Spanish because that sends the message that terrorism works, and simply passes the problem on to our neighbours. We can try and make sure it becomes more and more difficult for them to recruit new terrorists. We must simply stop pissing people off, and use our power to make life easier for the down trodden and huddled masses, for it is amongst their ranks that the recruiters have the most success.

To this end, it is right that the G8 conference continued, and it is right that we should help Africa, but we should also finally put to rest the Isreal/Palestine problem and give aid to Palestine to help them rebuild. We should then finish the jobs in Afghanistan and Iraq by rebuilding their countries and handing them back to local governments when we can offer aid, be it monetary or military, fiscal or physical and we can be invited to help, rather than imposing our solution.

But I'm still waiting for Our Tony to use this as a reason for the introduction of ID Cards and GPS transponders in our cars, because it can't be far off now.

Re:The perception of security

[TopShelf]

I would suggest faithless (because no one could truthfully commit such acts in the name of any God)

Thousands of years of human history would seem to contradict this. Think the Inquisition, the Crusades, countless Protestand vs. Catholic wars in Europe, Hindu/Buddhist conflicts in India, and Sunni/Shiite violence in more recent times. For (far too) many people, their belief in God allows them to dehumanize those who don't share their beliefs, making just about anything fair game.

Re:The perception of security

[SeanJones]

Even if measures do not actually improve security they may serve a useful function. One has to bear in mind that terrorists aim to leave people feeling insecure in the hope that political pressure will result in their demands being met. Acts of terrorism lead to disproportionate insecurity. Expensive machinery leads to a disproportionate (but desirable)sense of security for many.

______ Send the terrorists a message at www.defy.org.uk

Re:The perception of security

[BackInIraq]

Even so, US screening goes far beyond the pale - it does a lot of things that are inconvenient and expensive to make it LOOK secure when in fact it doesn't do much at all.

That's what I was trying to get at. The additional search on my bag seemed somewhat like a waste of time, but I really only added it because it complemented the rest. But the additional search of my person, even though I hadn't set off the metal detector...that was just plain silly.

And the whole taking off of the shoes is the perfect example of an inconvenience that provides no real security. It isn't even required...as I stated elsewhere I have gone through, wearing the same boots I was wearing that day, with no problem. In civilian clothes.

And yes, there is the occasional Timothy McVeigh (and yes, he was a former soldier...at my former duty station, no less). But the chance of a terrorist actually posing as a soldier in uniform, wife in tow, with a forged military ID is small enough that if he doesn't set off the metal detector, you should probably just let him walk through. But US airport security seems geared instead towards being as obnoxious as possible while providing the minimum amount of security possible.

Sometimes I think that our Department of Homeland Security's entire job is just to do everything they can to keep Americans feeling scared so they'll go along with anything the government wants from them.

Though, of course, that could be just me.

Re:The perception of security

[houghi]

We should not simply capitulate like the Spanish

How did the Spanish capitulate? If you talk about the elections, that was a direct result of the then current governement saying it was the ETA who did the bombing. If he had said he didn't know, the result would have been different.

It was also because of the governement being involved in the Iraqi war. The results of the elections had nothing to do with the direct fear of terrorist attacks. It had all to do on how the governement handled the situations. People where not happy how that was done and elected acordingly.

Do you vote for somebody who has lied to you? The Spanisch didn't.

Re:The perception of security

[Archangel_Azazel]

Actually, the only thing that I can think of is "Sure, go ahead and put scanners on EVERYTHING. It's still not going to help when the guy walks down onto the subway infected with smallpox or Plague." Nothing is ever secure.

Re:The perception of security

[HiThere]

Yah, they'll say strong words against them. And privately funnel them money.

This doesn't just mean religions, either. Political groups do it too.

For that matter, could you prove that it wasn't done by a fanatical protestant (of some denomination) to blacken the name of the muslims? That also happens.

Suspect everyone of lying to you about this one, whether they claim to have done it, or not to have done it.

Re:The perception of security

[absinthminded64]

Oh Come on . These Porn O Matic machines are costly and are going to be deployed in as few numbers as possible.

This is going to cause a line or a "Queue" of many people to gather at a central location at each station which fits the terrorists' needs perfectly.

If it's anything like the MTA you have every homeless person and street vendor carrying a metric ton of crap on wheels right onto the train. Enought to take out the train and probalby anything above it.

No one is going to commit to the resources needed to truely secure public transit unless a lot of people die. With the MTA you dont even have to get on a train. Just open one of the city's thousands of MTA ventilation grates right up from the sidewalk and plant your terrorist aparatust directly on the rails.

It's truely a mess. Public transportation is about as securable as MS Windows.

Re:The perception of security

[Pseudonym]

Thousands of years of human history would seem to contradict this.

Let's see that quote again...

I would suggest faithless (because no one could truthfully commit such acts in the name of any God)

The weasel word here is "truthfully". It's related to the "one true Scotsman" fallacy, but it's also quite correct when you understand it the right way.

No well-adjusted person commits an atrocity just because they feel like it. They need a "good reason" to cover for the fact that they're doing something wrong.

In a Milgram-like situation, for example, they might be following orders or trying to please someone. That's a "good reason". Religion has been used as a "good reason" for all sorts of things, but only because the relevant churces had too much political influence.

Nowadays, the usual excuse is "freedom". What could be better than freedom? What, you don't want public transport officials taking nude x-rays of you? You mustn't like freedom! Because that's why we're doing it. Freedom!

Did that help?

Re:The perception of security

[Firethorn]

Given that I hear about violations of airport security almost weekly, as well as a number of supply side attacks(IE the terrorists get themselves hired as airport workers, then use the insider knowledge to smuggle stuff in).

Would you support the creation of a 'NRA airlines'? Their motto - 10% discount for open carry. Would you fly on that airline?

Re:The perception of security

[renjipanicker]

"Hindu/Buddhist conflicts in India"

huh? Where did you get that from?

I think its interesting...

[SCVirus]

If this had been suggested a mere week ago, it wouldn't of been given a second thought... invasion of privacy... something about perverts you know...

Hype it up!

[FTL]

Argh. I have had it with people and organisations cashing in on terrorism. Some quick facts:
* Population of London: 5.5m
* Average deaths per day: 215
* Increase of death rate on 7 July: 23%
If there had been 50 extra heart attacks in London on 7 July, do you think that it would have been noticed? If it weren't for the wall to wall media coverage, this would have been a non-event.

Britain used to have a really good track record on terrorism. When the IRA blew something up, there would be a brief note about it on the news, then nothing. Terrorism is about publicity, and over-reporting it simply feeds it. But it seems that the dymanics have changed. Now there are too many organisations who have a vested interest in a continual state of terrorism.

Re:Hype it up!

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously don't get the point.

Obviously the perpretrators should be caught, and any simple measures that can be done to make something similar harder in the future should be done.

However, it's also a very unusual event, and going to extreme costs to slightly reduce the chance of something similar happening again is losing perspective.

Your poorly thought out emotional appeal just goes to show how irrationally most people react to events such as this.

Re:Hype it up!

[QuickFox]

Argh. I have had it with people and organisations cashing in on terrorism.

The United States has shown the way: How to take advantage of terrorism for profit, entertainment and re-election.

The writeup mentions the military-industrial complex. Maybe we need to start discussing the terror-media-politics complex.

I do hope my sig isn't too optimistic.

-- Terrorism may have turned the United States into a nation of fear and aggression, but it won't succeed in Europe.

Re:Hype it up!

[Mr2cents]

if some criminal organization in your city shot or strangled 50 people one night, would you still call it a non-event?

It's not a non-event, but the stupid reactions to the attack make me sick. It's as if the government would forbid selling rope after the hypothetical strangulation incident. Wow, I feel really safe now!

Re:Hype it up!

[geekee]

"What a load of shit! Fucking Americans... did your grandfather once sipped some Guiness and now you think it makes you qualified to comment on the Northern Ireland issue?"

Why did you assume he was American? So you equate America with misinformation, and assumed he was American? You might consider you are a bigot.

Profit range?

[mccalli]

QinetiQ stands to make £150,000 to £2 million per station

That's quite some gap. Suggests that figures are being plucked out of the air, perhaps?

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Profit range?

[Ochu]

Or possibly just the difference between stations with tens of thousands of people going through them each day, and those with ten.

Re:Profit range?

[hardcode]

The £150,000 is the initial quote - £2m is what it will finally cost. This is a .gov.uk project after all.

Problem

[iamdrscience]

These scanners still can see through clothing, but they can't see through all materials. This means that (a) there's a security hole or more likely (b) anyone carrying anything that cannot be seen through and is large enough to potentially carry something dangerous will have to be pulled aside and taken a closer look at. In the second case this will slow things down just like airport security slows things down making it even more of a hassle to take the tube.

Explosive 'sniffers'

[nogginthenog]

Wouldn't they be better off putting in devices that can detect explosives? I'm sure such things exist. 390,000 people use the Underground during the morning peak - is it feasible to scan all these?

Public more willing to accept surveillance?

[malkavian]

I don't think so..
I'm regularly in and around London, use the underground and the trains.
This scanner deal will be as much use as a chocolate teapot.
Do you get stopped for carrying an iPod, or some other music device?
No?
Then what if that's just the cover for a bomb?

There is no protection from terrorism. If somebody really wants to get you, they will.
If you spend your life worrying over it, stress'll get you before the bomb.

Be vigilant, yes. Watch out for the unclaimed baggage on the tube or the bus.
Keep your eyes open.
If everyone does that, you've got the best intelligent surveillance network in the world. The general public.

My first reaction to seeing the bombs go off was sadness for the people hit.
The second was a wave of resignation that phoney Tony would use this as an excuse to get additional surveillance in, and railroad the ID scheme.
Part one dead of track.. We see what happens next.

Another Tragedy

[Tilmitt]

"After today, I expect the travelling public will be more prepared to put up with a greater level of surveillance." Mr Stringer said.

I find it personally very disturbing how much people are willing to sell away their liberties for "security". We've all been to see Episode 3, but did we let its message get lost in the pretty effects? Better security could be gotten from not inflicting massive suffering on the world through plain wrong foreign policy.

Nice enough in theory...

[soma_0806]

I see two issues that will probably render this very expensive piece of macherinery fairly ineffective.

First, it is designed to view scads of people at once on video screens. Pinpointing just which person in a mass is the one carrying the "questionable object" may be difficult, particularly during hours of peak use.

Second, after this quote...

"We can solve the modesty issue by overlaying the body with graphics except for the area which causes concern."

The terrorists now all know just where to carry bombs to remain undetected!

Education

[Ochu]

Technology can only go so far. It seems that most of us Londoners have forgotten the lessons we learnt from the IRA. Ten years ago, you would never, ever let an unattended bag go ignored, and you would never leave bags unattended. Until three days ago, you saw both happening all the time. We need to remind people how easy it is to beat terrorism if everyone works together. I would also like to add a personal view on this, which is; these guys are pathetic. We have grown up with the IRA, and there is nothing special about these. Why the fuss?

Re:Education

[SCVirus]

Because in this case over reporting benifited the governments agenda, while during the IRA's peak, reporting on there activities only hurt them. It sparked debate on the subject, and that makes at least some people mention the fair share of atrocities commited by the Brittish Government (bloody sunday, loughall etc).

Re:Education

[Tal Cohen]

Suicides make all the difference. If the terrorists are willing to give up their lives for their cause (and in the case of Muslim terrorists, this often happens), then noticing unattended bags will be of little or no help.

Re:The Middle East Is Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

The terror is taking over our lives, Now all over the world

Only because you create it yourselves. In the meantime the country I live in is in no threat at all since we do not occupy other countries and kill their civilians.

Re:The Middle East Is Everywhere

[Hope Thelps]

The terror is taking over our lives, Now all over the world.

Bomb attacks in London aren't new. The difference is that now the government are hyping the fear.

Re:The Middle East Is Everywhere

[pintomp3]

umm, i wouldn't brag about "been there, done that" in this case. that's no way to live. how about we not occupy/invade/bomb/etc other ppls homes and countries so we don't have to live like this?

Water enters via the weakest point

[Toby The Economist]

So we make Tube entrances secure.

Bombers then attack concert halls.

We make concert halls secure.

Bombers then attack football stadiums.

We make football stadiums secure...

There is no purely defensive solution to this problem.

--
Toby

Re:Water enters via the weakest point

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no purely defensive solution to this problem.

There is one. It's called the big brother. And that is what we are heading for. I was resently informed that next time I'm getting a passport, I will propably need to give my fingerprints also. And tose fingerprints will go into large database, which will then be used to solve crimes.

So, I will be a suspect of a crime, even when I have never been arrested. And if you think this will stop here, think again. Big brother is watching...

Read Schneier's "Beyond Security"

[stereoroid]

How many copies of that book can you get for the cost of one scanner? It doesn't have all the answers - how could it? - it is designed to get you asking. So you install an expensive scanner at the entrance to Piccadilly Circus tube station. A huge queue forms, waiting to walk through the scanner. Add in a "queuing system" (tansabarriers etc.), so you have 200+ people waiting patiently in an enclosed space. Bang.

Utter stupidity

[DrXym]

What a waste of money. Assuming it ever got the greenlight I'm sure it will never occur to the terrorists to switch to another target.

I'm sure it won't occur to them to simply set their bombs off in a commuter train, or a bus, or a concert, or a cinema or anywhere else with a sizable crowd.

It's actually scary to see the massive lines of people queuing to go through security at most airports thanks to more stringent screening. It would be trivial enough for someone to walk up to that line with a suitcase full of explosives and kill several hundred people.

Terrorism thrives on publicity

[stoanhart]

It seems to me that terrorism only funtions because people way over react to it.

Think about it. How likely are you to die in a car accident, or from a heart attack, or just some other stupid accident/conincidence? Now how likely are you to be bombed? You should be "terrorised" of the free way, not a bunch of extremeists!

So many people die of hunger, disease, and civil war in developing countries every day. I don't know the figures, but I immagine more die daily than in all terrorist attacks in the last few years combined. <i>This</i> is where we should be spending out money. Just maybe, if we did that, people would stop hating developed nations, and stop bombing them!

And how much news coverage do the attrocities mentioned above get? A 30 second blurb on the news once a week, if that at all? Maybe if we treated terrorism that way, it would stop as well!

Think like a terrorist. Your objective is not to kill people, it's to get a message out. Unfortunately, killing people is the easiest way to get attention. Shitloads of attention. Days of prime time TV coverage. Of course you will resort to this method.

However, would you do it if the evening news went something like, "and in other news, London was bombed today. 30 to 50 people are believed to be dead. Now, back to the Simpsons."

Think about it...

Bye Bye Privacy

[sparkes]

"After today, I expect the travelling public will be more prepared to put up with a greater level of surveillance." Mr Stringer said.

I feel my privacy and liberty slipping away again.

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

~Benjamin Franklin

Re:I"d Rather Be Scanned Than Murdered

[saldek]

What do you think would happen if the guy behind youy is caught with a bomb-vest?

This doesn't solve anything. It'd just move the problem from the carriages to the platforms.

Re:Anti-terrorist recipe:

[Tim Browse]

allow democratic secession of any region that does not want to be part of your country;

Follow the recipe and *no* terrorists will *ever* want to bomb your country.

From wikipedia's article on Northern Ireland:

A slight majority of the present-day population are unionist and wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, but a significant minority, known as nationalists, want to see a united Ireland. These two views are linked to deeper cultural divisions. Unionists are predominantly Protestant and often descendants of Scottish and English (mainly Scottish) settlement in previous centuries, while nationalists are predominantly Catholic and usually descend from the population predating such settlement.

So...er...you were saying?

Re:Anti-terrorist recipe:

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean a recipe for anarchy, right?

And so...

[legirons]

And so the cost of last week's terrorist attacks rises by another £500 million...

I assume this is only the start of the damage to Britain.

Pointless.

[Aldric]

Rather than spend it on a feel-good measure, gather evidence to find those responsible and wipe them out.

Re:Appeasers go to hell

[Milton Waddams]

*sigh* People never learn. It surprises me (maybe it shouldn't) that the British government is taking this stance with the Islamic terrorists.

They took the same stance against terrorism in Northern Ireland. People kept on dying on both sides until they sat down and "appeased" the terrorists. While the situation up the North isn't ideal, it sure is far better than it was 20 years ago.

If I may use an analogy, sitting down and talking to terrorists is like brushing and flossing your teeth every day in order to prevent tooth decay and waging a "War On Terror" is the equivalent of taking all your teeth out.

Re:Anti-terrorist recipe:

[aurispector]

1) Results in instant fragmentation of every country in the world into tiny, competing and opposing units each sporting their own political agenda. Large areas of the world will be controlled by political and/or religious extremists of every stripe, coming to power and enforcing their creed by brutality and murder. Taliban galore!

2) Abide by this and guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.. can do anything they want to their own people. After all it's all "internal affairs" - tienanamen square anyone? Do we really have to wait until they fire up the ovens and gas chambers until we act? Or isn't that enough in your opinion? Perhaps we wait until they amass an ustoppable armada and congratulate ourselves on being ethical as they roll across our borders?

2a) What if they have no desire to negotiate honestly? Pacification only perpetuates the problems. Look at North Korea and the Non-Proliferation treaty. They used it to aquire nuclear technology and pulled out when they decided they wanted to make bombs. Do you really think Saddam was negotiating in good faith? This only works if you have a carrot AND a stick AND you are ready, willing and able to use the stick AND the other guy knows it.

3) Does "predatory" include making a profit? Without the willing concurrance of corrupt local officials who would sell out to ANYBODY, this wouldn't happen.

5) Although I agree that everyone deserves a certain degree of respect owing to fact of their humanity and that we should appreciate differences, there will always be discontent by minorities by virtue of the fact that they ARE minorities. As a white upper middle class guy I can't count the number of ways big and small I've been screwed over by people of all colors. If I was a minority and inclined to shift blame I can see how I might cite racism but in most cases race had nothing to do with it.

If you want a recipe that works, then how about this? Foster democracy to give everyone a voice and get the people to believe in the democratic process as fair. Have a truly free press to expose the bad people who abuse power in every society. Don't tolerate abuses, no matter where they occur. Recognize that there is no end to human shortcoming and that there is no end point, only the process.

It pains me to think about how many of these things do not truly exist in my own country.

Unfortunately resources are limited and we are forced to focus first on those things that affect our own interests, but why shouldn't people and nations be expected to do this?

I really wish the world was as fischer - price / tinker toy simple as you imagine it to be. Live a few more decades, read the news and lots more history and perhaps you will lose your "peace at any cost" mentality.

Re:I"d Rather Be Scanned Than Murdered

[vidarh]

The real issue is that terrorism is a minor killer. Every time you step into a street you have greater odds of getting run down and killed than what you have from dying on the tube network, counting both accidents and terrorism combined.

You're more likely to die of almost anything else than terrorism in the UK, even if we from now and onwards see an attack like this every year. We could have 30-40 attacks of the current size every year before it'd rival traffic deaths alone.

That kind of money would save far more lives if it was invested on any number of other things. There are 274 stations on the underground. If the average cost is around the million mark, the cost would easily finance another major hospital, for instance.

If terrorism was a significant killer, then yes, a little loss of privacy might be acceptable. But it isn't a significant killer, and blowing it out of proportion only serves the terrorists scare mongering and draw attention away from issues that affect far more people.

Sigh

[Turn-X Alphonse]

This is on the news all day. Everyone going "OMG WE WANT ID CARDS!", but the general public are over it already.

It seems like years ago to me, the bombings made no difference to me at all nor many others. We'll just see them try and force ID cards through and waste money on this sort of thing.

If they really do want to prevent another bombing they should spend the money on more coppers and make them do less paper work. A scanner can detect things but can't detect when someones acting very suspicious.

Londoner who has been to Israel and the States

[tezza]

Fly to Israel: Staff grill you before allowing you on the plane. Net result: 1 hour delay for say 150 passengers.

Fly to USA: Fingerprint scanning. Slight increase in time creates larger backlog. Clearing customs takes longer.

London Underground: Simple platform overcrowding at London Bridge Station, creates hour long waits *to get through the barriers*

---------------------

But I think the biggest parallel I must draw is between Israel border protection and the London Underground. In Israel a large amoutn of the suicide bombers detonated their packages at the border entry points, killing soldiers and innocent fellow border crossers.

If they install these machines at Tube stations, then terrorists will have a new target: at the point of inspection. They will be able to take out staff as well as passengers and entrance facilities. They do not have to even get on a damn tube.

Why spend money creating both a target and a delay???? The money would be better spent on building dialogue with the dis-enfrachised Muslim community. I mean who is going to be the main targets of 'spot-checks'? The man with the beard and skull-cap.

Re:The Middle East Is Everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really, What about the Bali bombings? Who did they occupy to deserve to be bombed? And what about the first time the WTC was bombed. The US wasn't occupying anybody then.

And his type of idiotic thinking is considered "insightful" on slashdot. This is a joke.

FFS

[t_allardyce]

We were doing so well on Thursday - people were saying "life has to carry on", the media were saying that we wouldn't be pushed around by this. Then it all has to go down hill. I blame the mother fucking tabloids they are basically raping this for everything, cover to cover, give it a fucking rest! It was a terrible thing to happen but do we have to drag it on? News is supposed to report things that are happening, when bombs are going off i want to know about it, when the bombs have stopped going off and there is no more fucking news about it then stop trying to make news out of it, stop trying to agitate everyone. People haven't even been buried yet and already the agendas are coming out - ID cards, scanners, companies who just want to make money selling us this crap are already pitching their bids. You know what? the end of the world is NOT here, the risk of another attack is low, our current security is strong enough and if there is another attack then it will happen no matter what security is in place. Put scanners on all the stations and someone will blow something else up. We can all carry ID cards and have check points every 10 meters and someone with a card will do the attack. Where will we be after that? more people dead but instead of being able to spend all that money on contingency, hospitals and policing we will have wasted it on useless £2m scanners. Just for fucks sake stop this mother fucking knee-jerk bullshit.

London is absolutely fine the way it is, this country is fine the way it is we do not need radical changes. The risk of a bomb going off is exactly the same has it has been for the last 5 years, just like the chance of the lottery numbers being "1,2,3,4,5,6", its only peoples perception that has changed.

Re:Anti-terrorist recipe:

[TopShelf]

Dictators everywhere will love your rules 2 and 2A - giving them free license to do whatever they want within their borders without fear of international intervention.

In two minds about this

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The mistake in the article is right here, IMHO:

"After today, I expect the travelling public will be more prepared to put up with a greater level of surveillance." Mr Stringer said.

I'm not sure that's true. Londoners and others have been remarkably resilient in the face of last week's attacks, with many transport staff and regular travellers being interviewed and saying that while they were shaken by the attacks, they absolutely wouldn't let it change their day-to-day lives, and they'd be back on the Underground the next day.

The greater level of surveillance implied by these machines may or may not make a difference to security, but will certainly cost a lot and upset a lot of people who don't like the idea of several random LU staff seeing them naked every day. They caused a stir with this when they started talking about using it at airports, and AFAIK the only plans currently in place at airports make it an optional alternative to a traditional "patting down". TFA does mention some methods QinetiQ have considered to address this issue, and I think the public would want to know that one of them was in place before they accepted this particular system.

I'm kind of in two minds about this whole thing. On the one hand, I'm about to go and send a message to two friends who were in one of the carriages that exploded, and were hospitalised as a result. Of course I wish they hadn't been there and no-one had been hurt last week. On the other hand, I know some other friends who seem to get stopped and anything up to strip searched almost every time they go to an airport, obviously causing them significant inconvenience and distress. Being checked out, either closely and physically or by a machine that essentially strips you, is not a pleasant experience. I find the fact that this happens to a couple of very attractive female friends far, far more often than any of the guys, even where they're travelling to or from the same home country, pretty telling.

If this actually helps security, maybe it's a price that most people would be willing to pay, though I'm not sure I entirely believe that. OTOH, this sounds like something expensive and good-looking that actually does jack to make anyone safer, and these systems do get abused, as those friends of mine can testify first-hand.

At the end of the day, you can never directly protect every key government installation, transport link, utility supplier, military base, and 101 other potential terrorist targets. It's just not possible, no matter how much technology and how many people you have. You can make it a bit more difficult for the bad guys, but the best ways to counter terrorism are based on intelligence/awareness (including the general public, not just some secret-agent-type mole), not creating unnecessary motivations for terrorist reprisals in the first place, and simply refusing to be intimidated by it so the tactic is shown not to be effective (as Londoners are doing so well today).

Cue profound wisdom from Franklin etc...

Re:Over-reaction

[mormop]

"b) Tony Blair has specifically stated that he does NOT intend to bring in a raft of draconian laws and new surveillance powers."

True but as anyone who knows politics knows, you should never believe anything until it's been officially denied.

Once Again, The Terrorists Win

[nurb432]

They got a lot of press/attention.

They reduced our freedom.

They reduced the quality of daily life, due to above point. With the goal of brining it down to their level, as they dont feel its 'fair' we have a 'better life' then they do.

They increased the general persons level of 'fear', and reduced our feeling of safety, and trust.

Yep, just what they want.

Re:The Middle East Is Everywhere

[hazah]

Ok, all you with your "insightfull" statements as to who's fault it is, and Israel being a terrorist state. Please, wake up.

First off, the common population in Israel, are just regular people who'd love nothing more than NOT to be involved in any of the political bullshit that currently takes hold over there.

Second, and most importantly, the poeple that had settled the land to cause this commotion in the first place, are pretty much all dead or in the process. How does it make sense to say it's "their fault" if none of the original people are involved?

Third, whenever things finally settle, a bomb goes off.

The current situation suggests that there is a small minority of individuals who *financially benefit* from all of this. Peace time means no recruitment. Satisfaction means no desparation, and desparation is one of the leading conditions that facilitate acts of terror.

Re:Appeasers go to hell

[Tyler Durden]

As far as Al Qaeda is concerned, wipe those fuckers off the face of the earth. Appeasement with them is not an option.

However, there are still occupations/actions done by Israel that are simply wrong and do nothing but give Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations an easy route to getting recruits.

For Israel to act more reasonably towards the Palestinians is not caving in to Osama and crew. Quite the opposite actually. It's whenever some kind of peace settlement is about to be made between Israel and Palestinians that the most terrorist attacks tend to occur. The terrorists fear peace more than anything. It robs them of power. I am so fucking sick of people claiming "We do not let terrorists control our actions", and then right when one of these bombings happen in response to peace talks demand going into "Fuck the general population and do whatever we need to weed out terrorists" mode. Well guess what Sparky, you did exactly what the terrorists wanted. Peace talks are caput, violence has escalated, and the conflict Al Qaeda is depending on to become a movement to shape the Middle East into what they want continues.

I hope you don't confuse what you label "Islamists" with the general Muslim population. Because that's just want the terrorists want us to think.

How does it feel to be Osama's bitch?

Re:Those who paid attention during Fahrenheit 9/11

[Luscious868]

Those who paid attention during Fahrenheit 9/11

Are as idiotic as those who pay attention when Rush Limbaugh opens his mouth. They all have an agenda and you better know that when you listen to all of them or you're in trouble. The truth, most of the time, is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

Re:Anti-terrorist recipe:

[learn fast]

Results in instant fragmentation of every country in the world into tiny, competing and opposing units each sporting their own political agenda. Large areas of the world will be controlled by political and/or religious extremists of every stripe, coming to power and enforcing their creed by brutality and murder. Taliban galore!

So why isn't the case with all the existing countries already?

Abide by this and guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.. can do anything they want to their own people. After all it's all "internal affairs" - tienanamen square anyone? Do we really have to wait until they fire up the ovens and gas chambers until we act? Or isn't that enough in your opinion? Perhaps we wait until they amass an ustoppable armada and congratulate ourselves on being ethical as they roll across our borders?

Last I checked, nobody invaded Pol Pot or Stalin to stop their human rights abuses. Most military humanitarian missions end up being major disasters that are anything but. Stopping the holocaust was a side effect, not a cause, of World War II. And let me know when those "unstoppable armies" amass at the borders.

Look, I can come up with irrelevant, extreme examples, too! This was a "humanitarian mission" to "stop the Arab slavetraders". This act of selfless charity resulted in brutal oppression and ten million dead Congolese.

What if they have no desire to negotiate honestly? Pacification only perpetuates the problems. Look at North Korea and the Non-Proliferation treaty. They used it to aquire nuclear technology and pulled out when they decided they wanted to make bombs. Do you really think Saddam was negotiating in good faith? This only works if you have a carrot AND a stick AND you are ready, willing and able to use the stick AND the other guy knows it.

Last I checked, North Korea started making bombs after George Bush refused to negotiate because you just "can't negotiate" with people like that. I don't know if that's true, but it's hard to imagine how it could have gotten anything worse than it became without negotiating (ie, them now having some nuclear weapons). Nor do I see wholescale military invasion of North Korea feasible at the current time.

Does "predatory" include making a profit? Without the willing concurrance of corrupt local officials who would sell out to ANYBODY, this wouldn't happen.

Hey, I can play this game, too! So, are you saying we should do things like this?

Although I agree that everyone deserves a certain degree of respect owing to fact of their humanity and that we should appreciate differences, there will always be discontent by minorities by virtue of the fact that they ARE minorities. As a white upper middle class guy I can't count the number of ways big and small I've been screwed over by people of all colors. If I was a minority and inclined to shift blame I can see how I might cite racism but in most cases race had nothing to do with it.

So, are you saying that because there will always be some racism, there's no point in trying to stop any racism?

If you want a recipe that works, then how about this? Foster democracy to give everyone a voice and get the people to believe in the democratic process as fair. Have a truly free press to expose the bad people who abuse power in every society. Don't tolerate abuses, no matter where they occur. Recognize that there is no end to human shortcoming and that there is no end point, only the process.

Well, this is easier now, isn't it? Democracy? We'll just "foster" it. And the people, we'll just "get" them to believe in it it. A free press? We'll just "have" it.

And look out, other nations should "be expected" to do this!

I'm sorry, the GP poster had its flaws, but this is about 10 times as vague and therefore about 10 times as

Re:Appeasers go to hell

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry the rest of the Religion of Peace has to suffer for the actions of a few, but that is not my concern."

Ouch. Now, that's darn scary. Read what you have said a couple of times. It sounds awfully familiar.

Swap "the Religion of Peace" for "the West", and you are practically quoting Bin Laden's justification for what he does -- not that I am equating his actions with yours, only the justification attempt.

While you are screening out Muslim immigrants, perhaps you should also screen out Catholics. After all, they could be supporters of the IRA, and might also bomb the Tube.

You ask how high would the percentage of fanatics among Muslim immigrants have to be before stopping them? I have a parallel question: how low would it half to be before your solution is clearly ridiculous? 1% to start? There's no way it is remotely close to that. It's not going to be that high, so your question makes no sense. I'd be surprised if it was 0.001%. We are talking handfuls of people in millions. But for the sake of argument, yeah, 1% would be bad. Something would have to change. But bar all people of a religion? No.

Hell, we don't even know yet if it was Muslim fanatics that did this. For all we know, it was a Timothy McVeigh-style home-grown fanatic or a disgruntled transit employee. But no, you're all set to condemn a whole religion and culture now, and, apparently, the ratio of fanatics to non-fanatics is okay for you when it comes to Irishmen or Montanans, but not Muslims, even when the ratios are probably so extreme they are qualitatively the same -- condemning millions for the sake of a few. You also neglect the many knowledgeable allies that would exist within those millions, and who would work as strongly and effectively against the extremists as the rest of us.

Can't you see that you are promoting the same kind of black-and-white "with us or against us", non-negiable attitude as the fanatics? This is not a way forward. It is becoming the enemy. It is promoting their irrational ways.

I commend you for the strength of your convictions, but I think your approach would make things much worse.

Re:Anti-terrorist recipe:

[IamLarryboy]

"1) Results in instant fragmentation of every country in the world into tiny, competing and opposing units each sporting their own political agenda."

Yes. This is a good thing. Competition, especially in a world as small as ours is today will allow the best "political units" to become prosperous while bad once to fail. Competition good, monopoly bad.

"Large areas of the world will be controlled by political and/or religious extremists of every stripe, coming to power and enforcing their creed by brutality and murder. Taliban galore!"

This is just flaimbait pure and simple. It is ridiculous and you know it! Are you seriously suggesting if Quebec, Newfoundland, BC, or Alberta separates from Canada we will become "controlled by political and/or religious extremists of every ...". Or Alaska or Hawaii. Taiwan is much more free than the China it separated from. For a time the US was more free than the Britain it separated from. Sure, There are counterexamples, however there is a good reason for them. That is: In any political arrangement evil people have a nasty habit of coming to power. So cut your bullcrap, more central government will not solve anything. If even a sizable minority of a geographic region want to separate I for one say let them.

"2) Abide by this and guys like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.. can do anything they want to their own people. After all it's all "internal affairs" - Tiananmen square anyone?"

That is because IT IS an internal affair. Is it one to be condemned? Absolutely! However, people have to CHOOSE to be free. It cannot and will not be forced upon them. China has its problems. However, the Chinese people have to solve those problems. Neither our guns nor our economic blockades can do anything but make the Chinese people worse off. The same goes for North Korea, Iraq and Troubled countries in Africa.

"If you want a recipe that works, then how about this? Foster democracy to give everyone a voice and get the people to believe in the democratic process as fair."

NO! Foster an attitude of freedom. I understand that many people believe that Democracy == freedom. This is absolutely false! I would even go as far as to say democracy is incompatible with freedom but that is an argument for another time. My point is this: If any nation really wants to be free the will find a way. In fact for people to WANT to be free is the only way for them to be free. This has always been true and always will be. The early US was largely free because those who lived there and then wanted to be. The Swiss are very free because the Swiss people guard their freedom jealously. The rest of the western world is rapidly ceasing to be free because WE NO LONGER WANT TO BE FREE!

"I really wish the world was as Fischer - price / tinker toy simple as you imagine it to be."

It really is fisher price simple. Every nation gets the government it allows itself to have. No nation can be held hostage against the will of its people. After all whose fist will they beat you with but the ones you provide. Who's boots will step on your neck but your own. After all, every dictator only has two arms and two feet. A dictator ignored is rendered harmless.

Re:Appeasers go to hell

[Eric S. Smith]

And with the relative birth rates of Muslims vs. the native populations of Europe, the time is rapidly approaching when Europe will have to decide whether to submit to Sharia law, or expel their Muslim population by force. I'm not kidding.

No, but you are a joke.

You assume that:

1. all Muslims are cultural imperialists, keen to impose a particular set of rules on everyone
2. their children and their children's children will be, too

Neither of these ludicrous assumptions is supportable. The fact is that while Osama and his friends and colleagues may be big on conquering the world and digging far into the past to justify their belligerance, they use current events to recruit their foot-soldiers. If the amount of justice in the world goes up, the number of radicalizable recruits goes down.

brood mares producing five or six little jihadis each.

Sounds like you disrespect women almost as much as the homicidal, scraggly-bearded, Koran-thumping fiends that you're so sure are hiding under your bed.

bombs are distastesful

[zogger]

killing random innocents is distasteful. Claiming al queda did it immediately based on one release at a controlled known about western website is distasteful. Ignoring the *plethora* of evidence that 9-11 was an inside job, and that tons of "al queda" have a long and notorius background as being contract employees or assets of western intel services is distasteful. Ignoring that these various wars were long planned in advance, then lied about repeatedly by the authorities, and that now the evidence is starting to leak more and more is distasteful. Ignoring the fact that your so called "leaders" (or "superiors" if you have chose that life path) are chronic serial liars is distasteful. Realising that false flag efforts are a common tactic in assymetrical warfare (or internal coups, there I said it out loud) is distasteful, but necessary. Ignoring uncomfortable evidence is distasteful. Watching it happen yet again is distasteful.

And watching western civilization slide down the tubes to outright fascism based on heglian dialectic transnational fascist corporate blood profits at any cost "intel" actions run by a coterie of elite globalist bastards is quite distasteful.

Merely pointing it out might make people uncomfortable (believe me I am not comfortable with it, none whatsoever, zero), but it needs to be done.

History, learn from it or re-live it, only two choices you have.

You would hope people would learn.

[Erris]

London is one of the most surveillance heavy places in the world. Yet not once have I read of any talking head crowing about how all of those cameras are going to make catching the responsible parties any easier. Preventing terrorism is what the cameras are for, right?

... phoney Tony would use this as an excuse to get additional surveillance in, and railroad the ID scheme.

More useless junk that will defeat the whole point of mass transit. The direct cost of the new equipment will dwarf the total cost of manning the surveillance society and no one being able to get anything done.

There is no protection from terrorism. If somebody really wants to get you, they will.

Just look at Israel. People have been herded into concentration camps, presumed guilty from birth, issued ID cards which they have to present to get out of the ghetto, their trucks have no fenders so they can be searched, walls have been erected, people have even been kept from using roads. I don't even want to imagine the lists of controlled substances. Imagine a farm without fertilizers and diesel fuel. Citizens carry machine guns, and are well trained. Yet, horrible things still happen. As someone else in this tread pointed out, anyplace you have people waiting is a place you can bring 30 lbs of bomb and terrorize everyone. Brute force and paranoia don't work, especially in a place like London where there will be no "us" and "them".

Re:I"d Rather Be Scanned Than Murdered

[Anonymous Coward]

All I see from your posts are straw-mans, non sequiturs and the ridiculous notion that we who oppose hugely expensive, ineffective, feel-good, whack-a-mole, band-aid security measures are somehow responsible for deaths by terrorism; that we let these people die.

Do you fucking work for QinetiQ or something? I ask that because there is no valid reason why such a system should be installed. Are you aware how many stations there are in the Underground and how many over-ground stations in the South-East have direct services? This would cost hundreds of millions to install and hundreds of millions more annually to staff and maintain the machines. And for what? To put the bombers on buses (THERE'S A FUCKING NOVEL IDEA), museums, restaurants or even the scanner queues themselves? Hell, if you can't blow up 25 people in a train, blow up the same amount in the huge queue at Covent Garden station; bodies are bodies, right?

The first reply (and subsequent comments) to your post shows your naviete at its fullest. You think the 'psychopathic killer' behind you will let himself get caught and not just detonate the bomb strapped to his chest? The icing on the cake is that you think that even if he detonates in the queue, it's an effective deterrent because 'it's not on the trains'. TAP TAP, McFLY, WHAT GAME ARE YOU WATCHING?

The more I read your bizzare, overly-zealous comments and accusations of 'murderer' to anyone opposed to this the more I think you have something to gain from such a setup. That or you're just a hysterical, easily-led sheep.

Either way, Al-Qaeda loves you for it (and the clear-headed individuals amongst us die a little inside every time you open your cakehole).

North Korea

[Whyte]

"Last I checked, North Korea started making bombs after George Bush refused to negotiate because you just "can't negotiate" with people like that. I don't know if that's true, but it's hard to imagine how it could have gotten anything worse than it became without negotiating (ie, them now having some nuclear weapons). Nor do I see wholescale military invasion of North Korea feasible at the current time."

It's a little more complicated than that. Clinton signed several agreements via Sec State Albright that essentually gave North Korea money and goods in exchange for promising to abort a nuclear-arms race in southeast Asia. But he did so without consulting with the Republicans in the Senate, and as a result couldn't get it ratified (remember Congress controls all the money in government). This is almost identical to the failed situation whereby the U.S. Senate refused to pass the treaty concluded after World War I (here again the executive failed to allow minority government to participate in the treaty making process and as a result was unable to get it ratified after it was signed).

Shortly there after Bush comes on the scene. North Korea makes the same offer ("buy us off or we make nukes"), but when Bush refused unilateral negotiations of this type they "suddenly" began developing nuclear weapons.

The reality more likely is that these weapons had existed in some form the entire time. As a number of analysists have pointed out, nuclear development in North Korea is a "fuzzy" matter to timeline. Especially since the U.S. is so heavily dependent on signal intelligence through the monitoring of internal communications - this type of intelligence is faulty if uncorroberated by human intelligence (/insert line blaming CIA Director Deutche). Just like in Iraq, we were hearing all the crosstalk, but the communicating agents are often lying to each other as is frequently the case in countries like Iraq and North Korea where each element is trying to bilk money out of the country and protect their position ("Comrade, we have increased boot production by 100,000 units this month, this memo proves it!").

At any rate, Christopher Hill and our other excellent public servents over at the State Department have as of this week re-engaged North Korea in multilateral talks. Unilateral negotiations can never work because the problem of nuclear proliferation within southeast Asia is not a unilateral one, and Bush was correct in accepting the State Department's advice in rejecting North Korea's request for such.

Re:How did the Spanish capitulate?

[ahillen]

While not supporting it in the first place may be a different matter, withdrawing support now only supports the terrorists.

A large majority of the Spanish population never supported the war, not before, not during the war, not afterwards. They threw the government out of office on the first occasion they had. That sounds reasonable. Should they let terrorists influence their opinion and their vote?

Re:Here's a real solution

[vandan]

Pull out now, without a stable government and adaquately trained police and military personnel in adequate numbers? Are you insane? Absent the rule of law, a power vacuum will always be filled by the most vicious, evil persons - because they generally kill everyone else.

That's exactly what's happening now.

the real solution is to allow a democratically established government to mature and supporting law enforcement arms to strengthen

You can never achieve democracy under occupation - particularly under occupation of the US, with their latest tricks they've learned from the Israeli army.

Another problem with this response is that it assumes that we have the right to decide when exactly a satisfactory, democratic government has matured, etc, etc. This is none of our business. It's up the Iraqi people, and if you read surveys of Iraqi civilians, the one thing that stands out is that they are 100% united over the issue of the occupation: they want us out, NOW! In fact ALL the candidates for the so-called election were falling over themselves to claim that they would be the ones to bring the occupation to and end and eject the US troups first - clearly because they knew this is what the population wanted. If you are serious about your calls for democracy, you should consider what the people of Iraq want: the opportunity to rebuild their country and their political situation without the constant threat of military aggression.

and while we wait, get the bastards that planned and supported the illegal, murderous acts on civilians.

I 100% agree with you on this one. Blair, Bush and Howard, and a large portion of their political colleges should face war crimes charges.

Re:Here's a real solution

[vandan]

So, the USA has been feeding people feet-first into running wood chippers? Tying people up, blindfilding them, then throwing them off buildings? Throwing a bunch of women into a small room so they can be raped whenever someone feels like it?

Where do you get this trash from? Let me guess ... Fox News, right? OK fine. Lets pretend for a minute that this BS actually happened. It happened thanks to the support that the US gave Saddam for the first 2 decades of his rule. And lets not forget Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and hundres of other secret US torture camps. And the US's practice of extraordinary renditions.

As for the nonsense regarding law-abiding Iraqis wanting the USA gone, you're wrong again. I've a brother who served in Iraq - they essentially get heros' welcomes whenever they meet people when on patrol.

Either your brother or you are liers. The US troups are hated by all but the top 1% of the population: the collaboraters.

In fact, that's exactly what the "insurgents" are trying to do ... except they aren't insurgents. They're carted in from the surrounding countries and usually end up targetting Iraqis.

A handful of foreigners come from neighbouring countries to try to fight off the invaders. I don't see the problem. They are in a far better moral position that the invaders themselves. And you can't undermine the legitimacy of the Iraqi resistance simply because there are some foreign fighters on their side. Of course if there were no foreign fighters in the country, there wouldn't be a problem, would there?

Read that again: the terrorists are blowing up Iraqis.

The Americans have blown up a hell of a lot more civilians that the so-called 'terrorists' could ever hope to. And keep in mind that the Sunnis and Shiites are both united in their opinion of the terrorists targetting Iraqi civilians: they are widely believed to be American Block Opts and Israeli army attacks, that are meant to be blamed on the Iraqi resistance. link

Check the Iraqi death toll - over 10,000. Guess who ISN'T using precision-guided weapons?
Where did you pull that figure from? I figure it came from where your intelligence is centred: your anus. However I'll pretent that you're right, and answer your question. Since the US have killed over 100,000, and the 'terrorists' have killed 10,000, I suppose that means the US are the ones that aren't using precision-guided weapons.

As for anyone in the current administration being a war criminal, consider this: the USA has had the right (some would say the duty) to attack Iraq again as soon as Saddam broke the peace treaty he signed when the USA kicked his butt out of Kuwait.

What utter trash! Simply having a 'treaty' on a piece of paper doesn't give the US, or any other country, the right to invade another country and kill hundres of thousands of civilians. And keep in mind that Iraq wasn't invaded because of your treaty - if this were a legitimate excuse, the US would have been falling over themeselves to use it instead of having to fabricate the 'evidence' and spend millions on their war propogandy ... which people such as yourselves have fallen desperately under the power of.

He'd been breaking his agreements for almost a decade, attacking US planes patrolling the area he wasn't allowed to keep forces in, etc.

What fucking right do some arrogant US arseholes have telling other people where they can and can't fly planes - in their own country!

The USA was 100% justif

Re:Here's a real solution

[vandan]

Wow! What a comeback. Return as an AC and post absolutely zero content. Must have taken some thinking.

Re:Here's a real solution

[vandan]

When one is presented with bullshit, it is appropriate to call it such. Your assertion that the US troups are welcomed as heros was complete and utter bullshit. I stand by what I said.

I suggest learning a little more about the world that you are living in, maturing a little, and then looking for a so-called 'serious' discussion.